Google Declares Complete Privacy Does Not Exist

1. Well, no kidding.

2. It gets better. The reason they are saying this is because they are being sued for 25,000 dollars in damages by a couple whose house is visible in Google Street View. The couple claim having this happen caused them "mental anguish" and property value reduction.

Of course this is an American couple, lol. And since it's America, you can rest assured this thing will make it to a judge, and, since it's America, I can't promise these nutjobs won't lose their case. I mean really folks, mental anguish because the OUTSIDE of your house is visible on the internet? Not you, but your house?! Just in case these idiots are Wilders members (stretch, I know)....why the hell are you suing a multibillion dollar company for 25k? Is your lawyer THAT retarded?

*sigh* Anyway folks, the comic strip for the day is here: http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007374.html

 

$25,000 must be the amount that they believe that their property has depreciated from being exposed on Google Satellite.

 

Last year I noticed the roof of my house and my garden was clearly visable on Google. Since discovering this, property prices in my region have dropped by about 3%. Some argue its because of the global credit crunch, but I suggest its all due to Google and their evil photo taking.

 

Does this mean that if your property was shown on the newpaper or local media, then your property value would drop?

 

If they manage to win this case then logically it could be argued that it would in my opinion. I mean, what truly is the difference? Google Street View in my mind can be considered "media" if you believe that pictures are a form of media. I'm not one to completely back Google for their privacy practices, and I don't consider their satellite imagery program to be entirely safe from a national security standpoint (not just U.S but all countries) in my opinion, but the reason behind this lawsuit is completely bogus and I have no choice but to side with Google on this.

 

You're right, that's a completely different property. But what I and the judge want to see is this alleged Private Road sign in the photos. There is some kind of sign in one, but it is a side view, not showing what the sign says. . If true, the trespassing argument may indeed work, but 25,000 dollars I don't think they will get for a simple trespass charge on non-government property. Besides, that lawsuit does NOT contain a count of trespassing, simply invasion of privacy (and yes, technically there is a difference), negligence, and conversion. The privacy count is the only one listed that makes any sense whatsoever. Their "mental anguish" can be fixed with a good dose of Lithium, which is exactly what these people need for coming up with such a lame excuse to sue.

 

I began indecided, a bit on google's side, but then i realized they invaded private property, taken pictures, and put them online.

Sorry, it has to be illegal.

No one was hurt etc., but if you want to set a rule, you have to start here. Or it gets messy to find the limits.

I don't comment on the specifics of their claims, but i believe in common sense.
Sure, outside private property, you can take pictures, of streets and houses. But you should not be able to drive through private property (when it's obvious or has a sign)... to take pictures, AND post them online.

Personally, i wouldn't sue, just demand the pictures taken offline. But they (Google) can't do this, if i got the facts straight.

 

I agree with your general idea about private property, but again, where is this sign at? The pictures I've seen do not show a specific sign stating this. There are quite a few places around here that have long, out of the way driveways and secluded houses on roads that are NOT designated as private property (I'm being a stickler, I know). And I still think there needs to be an actual count of trespassing listed on the document for that argument to be introduced, yet I see no such count.

@Jrviejo: I agree, this is no more than a quick cash scheme and a chance to be put in the spotlight for a few minutes by going up against a giant.

 

I suspect bringing this claim is not quite consistent with keeping a low profile / private life

 

Indeed